From the Maharlnach for half a lesson
You have encountered in lesson 1 a difficulty on the day of the Maharlanka like this:
He wrote that since leaven had its time of need, we need a special verse to teach us that even with leaven there is a law of half a lesson.
And you made it difficult, so even on Yom Kippur we needed a special verse because before Yom Kippur it was permissible to eat, of course, and so this eating was also kosher. Based on what you answered.
I wanted to offer you a different answer: On Passover, it is permissible to eat, but there is a special law regarding chametz, which is the only thing that is forbidden to eat. If I were to think that since I eat normally (just not chametz), then half a portion would be permitted, which is why a special verse came to forbid it. Unlike on Kippur, where there is no eating at all, and therefore it is similar to milk, which is always forbidden to eat, and therefore I do not need a special verse on Yom Kippur.
In other words, you are comparing the prohibition of chametz to the prohibition of eating on Yom Kippur because you place them on a time axis (both have a kosher time), and I suggest that you place them on a more fundamental axis, the axis of eating, and on this axis Yom Kippur and milk are similar to each other (because they are “complete” eating prohibitions).
What do you think?
You assume that השש is prohibited because of a reservation. This is not the accepted opinion, since it is accepted to think that the prohibitions of the Torah are not reservations. Beyond that, your reason is sufficient to permit השש even without regard to the fact that it depends on time. You can of course say that the combination of reasons is the cause of the prohibition of השש (that there is no dependence on time and there is a concern), but this is always a less likely possibility. And finally, the Maharlika should have mentioned this or at least commented on it, since the main discussion in Babylon about השש is in the Yochak that it depends on time.
Absolutely not. השמע is a prohibition in itself and not because of a restriction.
I will state my opinion in another way: And what about leaven that had a kosher hour but we eat everything except it (its "environment" is light) MM is forbidden for half a lesson, Yom Kippur that had a kosher hour but we don't eat anything on it (the "environment" is severe) is not a law that it should be forbidden השמע!
(Therefore, in Kipur we don't need to make a special verse)
And this answer is also correct for Babylonian, without entering into the scope of an obligation to fast and Jerusalemite, etc., etc.
If it's not because of a restriction, then why does it matter that you don't eat other things? Is this a ‘no or a serious matter? Why?
Beyond that, as I wrote, you are combining two reasons here that have no connection between them: a time of opportunity and that you eat other things. How do they play out? And in general, in principle, a combination is not reasonable as a basis for a law. The simple assumption is that every law has a basis of one principle.
« And in general, in principle, a combination is not reasonable as a basis for a law. The simple assumption is that every law has a basis of one principle ». What are two laws then??
We talked about it. Here you are making the law a necessary combination of two principles. There I explained to you that it is not two laws.
Indeed. There is a difference between two laws (each of which is sufficient on its own) and one law consisting of two things.
So in general, one law consisting of two things is always (almost certainly) less likely than two classical laws? Is there a reason for this perhaps?
There is no point in comparing them. One law is simpler than the combination of two. Two laws are something different, because it is one law twice. But there is no point in engaging in such general claims. You are suggesting here that there are two parameters, only one of which is mentioned, and this is unlikely. Both because only one is mentioned and because it makes no sense to depend on two parameters, and also because it is not clear what the relevance of one of them is (whether it is a halachah or a kula and what its significance is in the issue in general).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
